Yesterday it was reported that Professor Robin Alexander, in the Cambridge University Primary Review, has concluded that primary education in this country is 'too narrow'. The study covers education in England over the last 40 years and the interim report concludes that targeting and testing has lead to an overemphasis on 'the basics', ignoring other subjects such as History, Geography and Science. The government has responded saying the report is an insult and 'flies in the face of international evidence'. The report goes on to suggest that primary school education should be restructured around 12 aims in three categories: the needs of the individual; the individual in the wider world; and learning, knowing and doing. These aims would then be achieved (the report proposes) through teaching in 8 'domains': arts and creativity; citizenship and ethics; faith and belief; language, oracy and literacy; mathematics; physical and emotional health; place and time (geography and history); science and technology.
As an individual I have had the benefit of an exceptionally good education, but also a bad one. The first primary school I attended was well below par. After over two years of primary school education I could barely write and didn't know any times tables and tragically there were, I believe, other children in my class that were at an even lower eductional level! The school did not, as far as I can recall, have a set or structured programme of teaching. All our work was 'project' driven, spending our valuable time writing short fictional nonsense and stories about tadpoles (I have some of my old school work to prove it), most of which I'm certain this was of questionable educational value. Fortunately, my parents recognised early on that the education I was receiving was sub-standard and they moved me to Heathcote Primary School in Danbury. Heathcote had a set structure of learning which taught separate subjects including art, science, maths, english and computing. I was even taught French although it never stuck, probably because I was already so far behind my intake.
I started out two years behind the rest of my year knowing very little, but, thanks to a wonderful school and faculty (in particular Mrs Willis and Mrs Frasier - English and Maths - occupy a particular soft spot in my memory), by the time I left I was at a stage where I could breeze through the first year of high school in Scotland with little effort, while everyone else caught up with me! As a result, I am the first person to recognise the value of a good education versus the danger of a poor one. I believe primary schools should teach separate subjects and that kids should sit exams to get used to this as a testing method before it really matters. I also believe in a varied education, incorporating a wide spectrum of experience. However, I am not convinced that the Cambridge Review is taking the right approach.
As I review the aims the Review hopes to achieve in Primary Education and the 'domains' through which they propose to achieve them I wonder how much a school should actually be responsible for. Under the group of aims related to 'the individual in the wider world' there are subject aims such as 'encouraging respect and reciprocity' and 'local, national and global citizenship'. True, these are things which should (and I believe are already) encouraged in our primary schools, but surely it is the responsibility of the parents to instill this? I also question the practicality of a teaching a curriculum on this basis: how does the study propose to measure how well 'empowerment' and 'autonomy' are being taught in a school?
I completely agree that children have an entitlement to be given a broad ranging primary education but it is essential to remember that primary education provides a foundation on which an individual will build the rest of their knowledge and experience. It is imperitive that skills such as literacy and numeracy are well established because these are basic life skills that can be expanded upon later in the individuals' education and are essential throughout life. I know too many adults that lack the basic ability to construct a conherant sentance and are unable to perform basic calculations such as percentage and area. My 12 year old nephew has just progressed beyond primary education into high school and has, I believe, an excellent grounding in the basics so I understand when the government labels this study 'insulting'. The Cambridge Review seems to imply a stilted and stunted education system where all that is taught is literacy and numeracy, as if there is no mention of any other subject area. This is simply not the case. Of course these skills are emphasised because they are targetted and measured. They are targetted and measured because they are important! When taught well, these skills can be embedded into all the other subjects that can be and are taught in our schools.
Finally, it is also important to remember that it's all very well to discuss how education should or shouldn't be conducted but at the end of the day, it is more important to remember that if a change is made for the worse, it will impact on the lives of thousands of children around the country. It is not acceptable to tinker and experiment with a child's primary education - it could limit their potential for life if it doesn't work. Any change to education should be viewed, at best with caution and suspicion. We should be wary about sweeping away a system which does appear to be giving our children a good start - the government points out that "English children were recently recognised as being the highest achieving in maths and science among European countries."(quoted on news.bbc.co.uk) so we must be doing something right! I believe there are bigger priorities in education than the limits of the Cambridge Review can identify.
No comments:
Post a Comment